RawThinkTank Posted November 28, 2004 Posted November 28, 2004 Believe it or not this is going to be the politicians worst nightmare come true. I don’t see any problems with this idea becoming our future governance. We can vote from any phone or net to a voting machine with our own Password and give our vote from any safe place while the voting center will be a heavily guarded one as there will be only one for a huge area reducing the election cost. Hey but I haven’t told u the best part yet, we don’t require any voting day for this system so it is possible to change our vote anytime and as manytimes as we want. As soon as we see misuse of power by the person we voted for, he will be gone out of government for good; In fact we wont even require any political groups to pull each other if u think about this very carefully, but only hierarchy where we decide and politicians do their job. Our decsion can be challenged by anybody for legal grounds. Remember that its the law that will allow the rule of majority, hence decision of majority cannot be above law as that will become majority based autocracy. There is something yet powerful we can do with this technique: we read news (anywhere), this news can have a code associated with it and then people can decide whether they agree with or not by voting for that code thread. Same can be applied for every other policy, we no longer would need processions or demonstrations to fight for our rights. PS : There can be a site called whistleblowers.org where we can report corruption. And force investigators to do their job through majocratic voting. I am looking forward for more such suggestions. Please
atinymonkey Posted November 28, 2004 Posted November 28, 2004 Congratualtions, you have a political system that passes all the power to the Media.
Daymare17 Posted November 28, 2004 Posted November 28, 2004 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels advocated widespread reforms to take the power out of the hands of the banks, corporations, generals, police chiefs, etc., and to make the elected representatives accountable to the people and not to big money. Their idea of the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' (in reality meaning workers' democracy) comes close to your idea. The basic four points were: 1) All officials subject to election and immediate recall at any time 2) No official to receive more than a workers' wage 3) No standing army but the armed people (i.e. election of officers) 4) All state functions to be carried out by the whole able population round-robin. Of course, these democratic reforms would be little worth without at the same time carrying out a program of widespread nationalisation, eliminating the market system, and putting the whole economy under the conscious democratic control of the population. Otherwise, the economy is still under the despotic control of a handful of unelected bankers and board members.
Perennial Posted November 28, 2004 Posted November 28, 2004 Actually we could throw everything out except a body preparing laws and someone introducing them on tv, people could have green - yes & red - no buttons added to their remotes and could vote on acceptance of every single law. Would give the power of decision to senior citizens, though.
RawThinkTank Posted December 19, 2004 Author Posted December 19, 2004 I have a nagging question to U all. What will happen if we create a forum based on the subject article of this thread and eliminate all the moderators ?
budullewraagh Posted December 19, 2004 Posted December 19, 2004 while i strongly oppose a government controlled by government, i vehemently oppose majocracy. a majority does not necessarily know what is in its best interest. take for example hamilton and assumption. take for example south carolina's secession. take for example bleeding kansas. i would shy towards oligarchy before i accepted majocracy
YT2095 Posted December 19, 2004 Posted December 19, 2004 every 4 years or so we ELECT a dictatorship, the bars and lines that Should govorn these people and keep them in check,are being erroded!!!, slowly but surely. No matter WHO you vote for, .Gov always wins!
Sayonara Posted December 19, 2004 Posted December 19, 2004 I have a nagging question to U all. What will happen if we create a forum based on the subject article of this thread and eliminate all the moderators ? There is no "if" since you have no control here. Seeing as this site is not a democracy, it's a pretty poor analogy.
john5746 Posted December 20, 2004 Posted December 20, 2004 Democracy and liberty are two different things. Complete majority rule will eventually lead to the loss of liberty to the minority. It is also inefficient to rule day by day based on popular opinion.
RawThinkTank Posted December 25, 2004 Author Posted December 25, 2004 There is no "if" since you have no control here. Seeing as this site is not a democracy' date=' it's a pretty poor analogy.[/quote'] Yes this site is democratic and hence premitive. I have dedicated my life to Majocracy and hence world union. I hope more people understand Majocracy than when they discuss this personally with me.
budullewraagh Posted December 25, 2004 Posted December 25, 2004 problem with a united world is that culture would be completely lost. is it me or is there something absurdly wrong with mcdonalds encroaching on the business of street cafes in paris?
Glider Posted December 26, 2004 Posted December 26, 2004 It's not just you. That's a terrible thought.
Sayonara Posted December 26, 2004 Posted December 26, 2004 Yes this site is democratic and hence premitive. No, it's not democratic.
YT2095 Posted December 26, 2004 Posted December 26, 2004 consider it an Enlightened Dictatorship. life will be so much less complicated for you
budullewraagh Posted December 26, 2004 Posted December 26, 2004 haha wohoo i am the proliteriat! greetings my bourgeoisie bretheren
Gilded Posted December 26, 2004 Posted December 26, 2004 "consider it an Enlightened Dictatorship. life will be so much less complicated for you :)" That sounds like something Stalin said!
ecoli Posted December 26, 2004 Posted December 26, 2004 What your proposing, a direct democracy, which uses technology as a voting means. It sounds good, but I worry about hackers fixing votes. Also, if a direct democracy didn't survive in Rome, I don't think it would survive here. Definately too much media interference. People would vote for the bill that has the best advertising.
YT2095 Posted December 26, 2004 Posted December 26, 2004 and I was being Tongue in Cheek when I said that too I MEANT to say "One big happy Family"
YT2095 Posted December 26, 2004 Posted December 26, 2004 I`ve always been the "Black sheep" Odd one out since I was hatched LOL ) I try to remain Nice about it though
RawThinkTank Posted January 2, 2005 Author Posted January 2, 2005 What your proposing, a direct democracy, which uses technology as a voting means. It sounds good, but I worry about hackers fixing votes. Also, if a direct democracy didn't survive in Rome, I don't think it would survive here. Definately too much media interference. People would vote for the bill that has the best advertising. Give me a better reason for not going ahead with it. If U dont now , in five years your civilization would get transformed into something dangerous called Majo-crazy.
budullewraagh Posted January 2, 2005 Posted January 2, 2005 Give me a better reason for not going ahead with it. If U dont now , in five years your civilization would get transformed into something dangerous called Majo-crazy. in the world we live in a direct democracy is doomed to fail. referrendums on EVERYTHING would result in: -a people pissed off at its government for sending them too many referrendums -a people pissed off at its government for advertising their viewpoints everywhere, trying to get votes -decisions dominated by the money held by various parties of the government -nothing ever getting done because it takes too long and too much money to count votes all the time you want this? the only way this could work is in a small community of, say, 500 people
JaKiri Posted January 2, 2005 Posted January 2, 2005 Taking, as our example, the United States of America: Give me a better reason for not going ahead with it. Homosexuals. Abortion. Islam. Evolutionary Theory. Nuclear Power. Freedom of Speach. I have seen properly conducted polls that, in the US, belief or support of these things is a minority view. Your 'society' is designed around eradicating minority views and keeping the status quo.
Recommended Posts